PeterZ wrote:Ok, what makes these polls more accurate than the polls leading to the election?

They're not. Trump's approval rating during the primaries and most of the campaign was within error of this number. It's been higher than that post-election but it's back now to where it normally has been. He was the first presidential candidate to win with a net negative rating (more people disliked him than liked him), even most of the people who voted FOR him didn't actually like him.

The polls keep asking the wrong questions, they keep asking the national approval rating. But frankly it doesn't matter whether 90% of the people in San Francisco hate him or 99% do.

The tracking poll that I want to see (that would be actually useful) is his approval rating among people who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012 and voted for Trump in 2016. Preferably in the Rust Belt region. And I want to see it week by week. Is that approval rating trending down or is it trending up?

This would tell me the impact of his current actions on the key swing voters who got him elected. If those voters are trending toward disapprove he's in trouble.

Unless the pollsters start providing useful data, they're going to find themselves with egg on their face in 2020 again.

And KellyAnne is a pollster. A competent one that helped him get elected. I bet she has these numbers from private in house polls.

Incidentally on the very very rare occasions when a useful poll is conducted, Trump is maintaining support among the people who matter.

PeterZ wrote:Ok, what makes these polls more accurate than the polls leading to the election?

They're not. Trump's approval rating during the primaries and most of the campaign was within error of this number. It's been higher than that post-election but it's back now to where it normally has been. He was the first presidential candidate to win with a net negative rating (more people disliked him than liked him), even most of the people who voted FOR him didn't actually like him.

The polls keep asking the wrong questions, they keep asking the national approval rating. But frankly it doesn't matter whether 90% of the people in San Francisco hate him or 99% do.

The tracking poll that I want to see (that would be actually useful) is his approval rating among people who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012 and voted for Trump in 2016. Preferably in the Rust Belt region. And I want to see it week by week. Is that approval rating trending down or is it trending up?

This would tell me the impact of his current actions on the key swing voters who got him elected. If those voters are trending toward disapprove he's in trouble.

Unless the pollsters start providing useful data, they're going to find themselves with egg on their face in 2020 again.

And KellyAnne is a pollster. A competent one that helped him get elected. I bet she has these numbers from private in house polls.

Incidentally on the very very rare occasions when a useful poll is conducted, Trump is maintaining support among the people who matter.

Yesterday's theatrics suggest to me that internal polls are pretty supportive of the President. The Ford and GM news further suggests that the Rust Belt won't feel ignored and polls will very likely show that support. If repatriated corporate wealth is invested in inner cities, the core blue islands of democrat hope may shrink substantially.

Btw, why did the news conference yesterday suggest a bull fight? Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer had been acting like skilled picadors aggravating the bovine press into apoplectic fury over the previous days and the President enters to further marginalize the core MSM at the conference. Comparing that group to a feel-good morning daily morning show and emphasizing how short they came up was as cutting an insult as it comes. Fake news and low ratings were comments from a man letting the most disagreeable parts of nature free reign. The response from F Chuck Todd was priceless!

All the while his agenda keeps marching along and the heat is off Congress. The man is scripting a reality TV show and one of the prime participants (the press) doesn't even know it, but follows along on que regardless.

I actually thought the "Scapegoat" press conference with Pelosi and Cummings was priceless.

I hear echoes of Miss Emily Litella..."Nevermind..."

But I watched the Trump presser and then read the "reportage". It broke down as expected. Trump detractors used negative adjectives in their reporting. Trump supporters used positive adjectives in their reporting.

PeterZ wrote:Yesterday's theatrics suggest to me that internal polls are pretty supportive of the President. The Ford and GM news further suggests that the Rust Belt won't feel ignored and polls will very likely show that support. If repatriated corporate wealth is invested in inner cities, the core blue islands of democrat hope may shrink substantially.

Btw, why did the news conference yesterday suggest a bull fight? Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer had been acting like skilled picadors aggravating the bovine press into apoplectic fury over the previous days and the President enters to further marginalize the core MSM at the conference. Comparing that group to a feel-good morning daily morning show and emphasizing how short they came up was as cutting an insult as it comes. Fake news and low ratings were comments from a man letting the most disagreeable parts of nature free reign. The response from F Chuck Todd was priceless!

All the while his agenda keeps marching along and the heat is off Congress. The man is scripting a reality TV show and one of the prime participants (the press) doesn't even know it, but follows along on que regardless.

Some of the pundits who have been more accurate in predicting Trump's behavior have described it as resembling David Copperfield.

biochem wrote:They're not. Trump's approval rating during the primaries and most of the campaign was within error of this number. It's been higher than that post-election but it's back now to where it normally has been. He was the first presidential candidate to win with a net negative rating (more people disliked him than liked him), even most of the people who voted FOR him didn't actually like him.

The polls keep asking the wrong questions, they keep asking the national approval rating. But frankly it doesn't matter whether 90% of the people in San Francisco hate him or 99% do.

The tracking poll that I want to see (that would be actually useful) is his approval rating among people who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012 and voted for Trump in 2016. Preferably in the Rust Belt region. And I want to see it week by week. Is that approval rating trending down or is it trending up?

This would tell me the impact of his current actions on the key swing voters who got him elected. If those voters are trending toward disapprove he's in trouble.

Unless the pollsters start providing useful data, they're going to find themselves with egg on their face in 2020 again.

And KellyAnne is a pollster. A competent one that helped him get elected. I bet she has these numbers from private in house polls.

Incidentally on the very very rare occasions when a useful poll is conducted, Trump is maintaining support among the people who matter.

Yesterday's theatrics suggest to me that internal polls are pretty supportive of the President. The Ford and GM news further suggests that the Rust Belt won't feel ignored and polls will very likely show that support. If repatriated corporate wealth is invested in inner cities, the core blue islands of democrat hope may shrink substantially.

Btw, why did the news conference yesterday suggest a bull fight? Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer had been acting like skilled picadors aggravating the bovine press into apoplectic fury over the previous days and the President enters to further marginalize the core MSM at the conference. Comparing that group to a feel-good morning daily morning show and emphasizing how short they came up was as cutting an insult as it comes. Fake news and low ratings were comments from a man letting the most disagreeable parts of nature free reign. The response from F Chuck Todd was priceless!

All the while his agenda keeps marching along and the heat is off Congress. The man is scripting a reality TV show and one of the prime participants (the press) doesn't even know it, but follows along on que regardless.

Good grief... the terrifying thing is I think you actually believe what you just said.

Let's be clear, Trump only won for a single reason. Clinton.

His campaign was a train wreck. The entire thing was incompetently run from top to bottom (a theme that has continued on into his presidency). He as a candidate was a walking talking dumpster fire. He won because the Democratic Establishment tried to force Clinton on people, the end. Exit polling showed over HALF of Trump's voters were primarily motivated by opposition to Clinton rather than support for Trump. Without Clinton driving all that negative support Trump's performance would have been a humiliating slaughter of historical proportions.

There was no competent polling or adept political maneuvering or genius 3 dimensional chess playing behind the scenes that led to a brilliant Trump victory. There was just a visceral lashing out at the establishment by the mob. And Trump happened to be the monumentally incompetent man-child lightening rod it got attracted to in the moment. That's. it.

If you could seriously have watched Trump's press conference yesterday and come away from it thinking that was some kind of well thought out plan I am sincerely concerned for you.

gcomeau wrote:If you could seriously have watched Trump's press conference yesterday and come away from it thinking that was some kind of well thought out plan I am sincerely concerned for you.

I appreciate your concern. It does illustrate the issues we face in the US, eh? We both view the same event and take away very different things. You are quick to discard that difference as some sort of psychosis/malady while I recognize that barrier for what it is; a massive chasm between our world views.

Since I choose to categorize the difference less personally than you do, it enables me to attempt to understand why that chasm exists. Your quick assumption of an illness on my part will keep you comfortably from questioning that chasm and your part in its existence.

This gives me hope that even those on the left, like you, who are more sane than most is dreadfully out of touch with the growing mainstream. The longer you remain out of touch, the more of what I would consider reasonable policies will get enacted.

His campaign was a train wreck. The entire thing was incompetently run from top to bottom (a theme that has continued on into his presidency). He as a candidate was a walking talking dumpster fire. He won because the Democratic Establishment tried to force Clinton on people, the end. Exit polling showed over HALF of Trump's voters were primarily motivated by opposition to Clinton rather than support for Trump. Without Clinton driving all that negative support Trump's performance would have been a humiliating slaughter of historical proportions.

There was no competent polling or adept political maneuvering or genius 3 dimensional chess playing behind the scenes that led to a brilliant Trump victory. There was just a visceral lashing out at the establishment by the mob. And Trump happened to be the monumentally incompetent man-child lightening rod it got attracted to in the moment. That's. it.

A logical theory and one more reason we need relevant polls. Is Trump holding on the the anti-Clinton vote or is he losing them? Who knows from those worthless national averages.

Mike Pence is Trump's Impeachment Insurance. As long as Pence is Heir, Senate Democrats will be *very* reluctant to vote to convict Trump of an impeachable offense.

Really. Most of us Democrats believe that Pence would govern worse than Trump now does. (Of course, for "worse" read "more of a Republican.") One obvious example: gay marriage.

As for Congressional Republicans, they credit Trump with saving the Senate for them, and maybe even the House. They feel in his debt for that. Besides, he is doing very much of what they want done.

As for the Enomulents (sic) Clause, it gives Congress the Constitutional Right to exempt him from it. They might do just that, or they might keep it "on offer" to hold over his head, so he won't turn into a Democrat.

HTM

cthia wrote:You misunderstand me. I am not calling for his impeachment, I am simply predicting it.